CFI Releases Analysis of Money in State Elections

Nearly Two-Thirds of the Candidates’ 2012 Money in the Median State Came from PACs or from $1,000+ Donors; Small Donors Gave 16%

Less than 1% of Adults in the Median State Gave any Money at All to a Candidate for State Office

Follow CFI on Twitter:

Much of the politically attuned public’s attention during the 2014 election season has focused on the battle for majority control of the U.S. Senate. But there are also important elections this year in the states. Thirty-six states will be voting for Governor on November 4, with eleven of these races considered Toss Ups by the Cook Political Report. On the same day 6,049 of the nation’s 7,383 state legislative seats will be on the ballot, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Governing Magazine sees 18 of the country’s 98 partisan legislative chambers as being vulnerable to a change in majority control.

With this degree of competition, it is worth asking where the money will come from. Some clues can be found in the elections just past. Today the Campaign Finance Institute is releasing its analysis of the sources of campaign funding in the 2012 elections for state office, based on data supplied by the National Institute on Money in State Politics (NIMSP). This continues a series that CFI began with the elections of 2006.

HOW MANY GAVE?

The most striking fact about state elections is the tiny number of people who give any money at all (see Table 1). Of the 44 states holding elections in 2012, Illinois was the median with 0.88% of the voting age population (VAP) contributing to a candidate for state office. The range across states went from Montana’s high of 4.64% down to California’s 0.23%. (In fairness, it should be pointed out that Montana held a gubernatorial election in 2012 and California did not.)

All of these percentages include generous estimates of the number who gave small amounts below each state’s minimum disclosure threshold. The 2012 rates were generally lower than those for 2010, when more states held gubernatorial elections. With 36 gubernatorial elections, 2014 may look more like 2010 than 2012. But even that is not likely to boost the number contributing by all that much. Pennsylvania was the median state in 2010 with 1.3% of its VAP contributing to candidates. (See this CFI report for donor participation in 2006 and 2010.)

SOURCES OF FUNDS

MAJOR DONORS AND PACS: With so small a number of people giving, the bulk of the candidates’ funds came from non-party organizations (generally PACs) and from individuals who gave $1,000 or more. In the median states (North Carolina and New Hampshire) these sources accounted for 65% of the candidates’ total fundraising from private sources, excluding self-financing (see Table 2). In five states the figure was above 80% (Georgia, Missouri, Utah, Texas and Nevada).

SMALL DONORS: Connecticut and Minnesota led the states in their candidates’ reliance on small donors. Five other states made up a strong second tier.

Connecticut’s candidates received 90% of their private funds from donors who gave $250 or less. The state offers voluntary full public funding to candidates; most legislative candidates in 2012 participated. Candidates who participate have to adhere to a $100 contribution limit when raising the money that qualifies them for the public grant. This explains the state's high percentage from small donors.

Minnesota’s candidates received 66% of their privately raised money from donors who gave $250 or less. The state has a partial public financing system with voluntary spending limits. Most Democratic and Republican candidates participated. Minnesota also offers donors up to a $50 annual rebate (suspended 2009-13) for contributing to candidates who accept public funds or to political parties.

In five other states, candidates received 40% or more of their funds from donors who gave $250 or less. The states were Wisconsin (49%), Massachusetts (43%), Rhode Island (42%), Maine (42%), Arizona (42%), and Montana (41%).

Washington, Kansas and Kentucky were the median states, with 16% of candidates’ funds contributed by donors who gave $250-or-less. Twelve states were below 10%.

FEDERAL COMPARISONS: As a comparison, candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives received 10% of their contributions in 2012 from donors who gave $200 or less, compared to 71% from those giving $1,000 or more and from PACs. (See detailed table)

President Obama’s campaign committee received 28% of its 2012 money from donors who gave $200 or less and 39% from those giving $1,000 or more. (See detailed table)

NOTE ON METHODOLOGY: To derive the percentage of a state’s voting age population (VAP) that gives to candidates, CFI began by counting the number of unique donors to candidates in each of the relevant elections. The records were obtained from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which collects, standardizes and produces electronic files for each of the states. Itemized donors who gave to more than one candidate (or more than once to a single candidate) were counted only once. Unitemized donors had to be estimated. CFI assumed that each unitemized donor gave half of the state’s disclosure threshold. Thus in the median state, with a disclosure threshold of $50, CFI assumed an average of $25. CFI then divided the number of unique donors in each state by the state’s VAP in the election year as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, including non-citizens. The results are reported as the percentage of VAP who were unique donors in each state.

The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute. Statements of the Campaign Finance Institute and its Task Forces do not necessarily reflect the views of CFI's Trustees or financial supporters.